Online  permalink

The Moderation Lottery

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 66
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by third-doctor (U1538046) on Tuesday, 28th October 2008

    During the final days of the reign of She Who Must Be Obeyed, many of us on here voiced concern over some highly erratic moderation decisions (Inoffensive messages removed for apparently spurious reasons while clearly deliberately offensive messages were allowed to remain). Afterwards, a more saner policy seemed to prevail, though.

    In recent weeks, I have begun to wonder if things have really changed that much after all, however. While, I naturally realise that moderators are human, I have a sneaking suspicion that some 'decisions' are not really decisions at all, but simply standard replies. For example, if one sends in a complaint about a message and receives a more or less instantaneous response 1/4 past midnight (UK time), does this indicate that someone is working late or is it simply a computer generated standard reply? And why, when 'decisions' can be so prompt, does it take forever and a day (if at all) to receive a reply to queries over the reasons for seemingly bizarre 'decisions'?

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Faye Tsar (U1683210) on Tuesday, 28th October 2008

    During the final days of the reign of She Who Must Be Obeyed, many of us on here voiced concern over some highly erratic moderation decisions (Inoffensive messages removed for apparently spurious reasons while clearly deliberately offensive messages were allowed to remain). Afterwards, a more saner policy seemed to prevail, though. 

    There might be a more saner policy, but many people banned or put on pre-mod from around that time remain so. Any talk about it, even between ourselves is banned, probably as there isn't a justifyable reason for the beeb's behaviour.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Faye Tsar (U1683210) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    This posting has been temporarily hidden, because a member of our Moderation Team has referred it to the Hosts for a decision as to whether it contravenes the House rules in some way. We will do everything we can to ensure that a decision is made as quickly as possible. 
    Once again a post that cleared the pre-mod procedure has been referred to hosts and will probably be removed.

    When my last posts was removed I followed the advice of one of the hosts and wrote to pov.hosts@bbc.co.uk. I have not had a reply in over ten days.

    The last time I enquired I was informed that people who have a query about this board should contact the hosts by email - via pov.hosts@bbc.co.uk.

    Please bear in mind that the team have full time jobs in addition to running the boards (and are unlikely to be working outside office hours) so you can't expect an immediate reply. The BBC, like most large organisations, aims to respond to correspondence within ten working days. 


    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    If this is how you run a messageboard, how can we trust the integrity of other parts of the BBC?

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Whisky (U180644) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    It's amazing that people still can't figure out, despite the number of times it's been explained, just how the moderation system works...

    The two words 'Moderators' and 'Hosts' do NOT mean the same thing: Hosts are BBC employees who help administer these boards (in addition to their other jobs within the Beeb... You'll often see them posting to various boards (usually their names are in bold-italic print, and, depending on the individual board their name may be a different colour.

    Moderators are there to check for breaches in the house rules, there are moderators on duty 24 hours a day... They deal with most of the boards and see the posts out of context - they NEVER post to the boards in their role of moderator.

    Right, so, the various boards are moderated in one of three ways.

    Pre-moderation - A moderator checks the post _before_ it appears on the site

    Post-moderation - The moderator checks the post out within X-minutes of it appearing on the site

    Reactive moderation - A moderator _only_ looks at a post if someone presses the "complaint" button.

    In addition, under Pre and Post moderation systems, the moderator may end up looking at a post a second time if someone presses the complaints button... So, for example, the first time round the moderator may think a post is OK, but if someone complains, explaining the context (which the moderator doesn't see) the post may be removed later...

    ----

    Ok, what can the moderator do with the posts...

    1) He can pass them... They stay where they are and are visible.

    2) He can fail them... They are hidden from view and the poster gets sent one of half a dozen standardised e-mails telling them which one of the house rules they broke

    3) He can refer them to a host... Usually happens in borderline or 'odd' cases... The post gets hidden and passed onto a host to deal with... The user doesn't get an e-mail unless the host fails the post completely... And remember, hosts work normal office hours so any post referred to a host at 6pm on a Friday is likely to remain hidden until the host in question has had the time to clear their e-mails on Monday morning.

    If you have a post removed and receive the standard e-mail, replying to that mail will send the message to the hosts, not back to the moderators.

    -----

    So, yes, complain about a post at 2 in the morning and a moderator will see it... There is someone there 24 hours a day (even though this board is closed at that time of day, there are others still open, so there's got to be at least one moderator on duty).

    However, as I've already said, Moderators and Hosts aren't the same people...

    Query a decision at 2 in the morning and the query goes to the HOST, not the Moderator (Moderators don't post), so you're not going to get an answer immediately...

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by riverbank (U2851836) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    Wouldn't it make sense for moderators to look at posts in context? Context has a HUGE bearing on the meaning of a post; it can change the sense of the words completely.

    Yes, the hosts can see whole threads, but they often wash their hands of moderation decisions, saying they're a different department and it's not up to them (eg here in post 9: www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb... ).

    I’m not surprised people get confused, Whisky! It’s lack of joined-up-thinking par excellence.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Whisky (U180644) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    Yes, the hosts can see whole threads, but they often wash their hands of moderation decisions, saying they're a different department and it's not up to them.
     


    Must admit, I've wondered about that as well... Certainly the case used to be that because of Peta's experience and what her full-time job was, she had access to the Central Communities Team account and would, undoubtably, have been one of the people dealing with moderation-related queries...

    Whereas now, I'm not sure who's behind the CCT account, and it might well not be one of our 'regular' hosts.
    One of the negative points of not having full-time hosts on the boards.

    However, there is one other alternative that shouldn't be totally ignored... In 99.9% of cases, in any discussion of an individual moderation query on the site involving a BBC Host, the conversation rapidly degenerates into a flame war... That's why hosts don't discuss moderation queries on-site and try to get people to e-mail any queries.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Central Communities Team (U1097995) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    Hello thrid-doctor

    Thank you for your email.

    Whiskey has been pretty spot on with regard to how the moderation system works.

    If you complain about a post at quarter past midnight you're likely to receive a quicker response as the moderators' work load is likely be a lot lighter than it is during the day.

    Complain during the day and there may be dozens of other alerts queued before yours, so it will take a little longer before it is dealt with.

    While the response you receive will be an automated one, the post and complaint is reviewed by a moderator.

    Replies to queries regarding moderation decisions are dealt with by Hosts or members of the Communities Team. While the Moderators are only there to moderate, Hosts have many other duties besides looking after the messageboards and the Communities Team deal with queries, technical and editorial, across the majority off messageboards and blogs and so again have numerous other tasks relating to the day to day running of the boards. While we will try and respond, that response will not be immediate and we do not have the resources to engage in ongoing discussion regarding single issues.

    In response to riverbank's post, while Lee posts to the boards to facilitate discussion, he has no involvement in day to day moderation and so will be unable to answer queries relating to moderation decisions.

    If you wish to query a moderation decision, you should email pov.hosts@bbc.co.uk or forward your moderation email to centralcommunitiesteam@bbc.co.uk.

    Since Peta left us a few weeks ago there has been a noticeable drop in terms of an active host presence on the boards, however, this is something we are working to rectify.

    Best wishes,
    CCT.




  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by riverbank (U2851836) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    "Since Peta left us a few weeks ago there has been a noticeable drop in terms of an active host presence on the boards, however, this is something we are working to rectify."

    - Pleased to hear that. Any comment on how the moderators are judging posts only seen out of context? I do think this is a real problem.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Central Communities Team (U1097995) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    Hi Riverbank

    Primarily due to the high number of posts the moderators have to review, they don't have the resources to view each individual post in context. In practice we have found that this to be the most efficient way of managing the boards.

    Where the moderators believe context may be an issue, posts are usually referred to a supervisor for further investigation.

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by riverbank (U2851836) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    "In practice we have found that this to be the most efficient way of managing the boards."

    - Well, if I am allowed a piece of constructive criticism, it really isn't efficient because it produces unfair results. Nasty, scarcastic insults are allowed to stay up, while other innocuous comments are whipped off. I'm speaking as someone who knows these boards very well, and has posted on them for several years now.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by third-doctor (U1538046) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    While the response you receive will be an automated one, the post and complaint is reviewed by a moderator.  Thanks for getting back to me on this. I admit that I had no idea that people were still working around the clock. However, could you just clarify the above for me, please? If the response is automated, does that mean that the 'decision' is indeed made by a machine in such cases and then only reviewed later by a moderator?

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Whisky (U180644) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008


    Well, if I am allowed a piece of constructive criticism, it really isn't efficient because it produces unfair results
     


    I've always found you get better results when you're complaining if you use the 'comments' box constructively - remembering the moderator won't see what's going on around the post you're complaining about... A polite note attached to the complaint telling them which of the rules you think has been broken and why tends to get the job done.


    If the response is automated, does that mean that the 'decision' is indeed made by a machine in such cases and then only reviewed later by a moderator?
     


    The response isn't automated, it's just rather than have to type out an e-mail every time they fail a post, the moderators have a list of several standard e-mails they can choose from to send out if they fail a post.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by riverbank (U2851836) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    "A polite note attached to the complaint telling them which of the rules you think has been broken and why tends to get the job done."

    - If only that were the case, Whisky.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Whisky (U180644) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    It's always worked for me...

    The problem is that the moment the 'complain' button is pressed then it's inevitable that someone is going to be annoyed. Either the original author if the post is removed or the person complaining if it isn't.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by riverbank (U2851836) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    Up until a month ago, I'd have been speaking with the same confidence as you, Whisky. I can't say any more.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by Whisky (U180644) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    smiley - sadface
    Sounds like you've been on the receiving end of a run of bad luck or something.

    Don't worry, you're not paranoid, they're not out to get you - they're actually out to get everyone smiley - winkeye

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by riverbank (U2851836) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    "Sounds like you've been on the receiving end of a run of bad luck or something."

    - Or something.

    Yes, it's been quite an eye-opener.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Whisky (U180644) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    And I suppose the other problem is that there's a thin dividing line between someone actually breaking the house rules and simply being a prat - which, unfortunately, they seem to have left out of the rules when they wrote them. smiley - winkeye

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by riverbank (U2851836) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    It's the inconsistent application of House Rules, used in a way that targets an individual, that concerns me.

    Plus the fact there's no difference between a post that's merely off-topic, and a post that's libellous, offensive, aggressive, racist, threatening etc. To hold those to be of equal weight when considering whether to put someone on pre-mod, seems to me to be wrong.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by Whisky (U180644) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008


    It's the inconsistent application of House Rules, used in a way that targets an individual, that concerns me.
     


    Now, I'll admit I'm not 100% certain about this (CCT could confirm it if they come back) but I'm pretty sure that the moderators don't actually see the name of the person who made the posting when they decide to pass it or remove it to avoid any such bias.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by riverbank (U2851836) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    Unless someone's made use of the box to elaborate.

    Something's up, Whisky, honestly.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Faye Tsar (U1683210) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    The two words 'Moderators' and 'Hosts' do NOT mean the same thing 

    You'll have to explain to me how anything in my post would lead to the assumption that I don't know the difference.

    Once again a post that cleared the pre-mod procedure has been referred to hosts and will probably be removed. 

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Whisky (U180644) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    Riverbank:

    I assume by that you mean that someone on the board is colluding with a moderator and having your posts removed just because it's you? I find that very unlikely given the organisation... About the only way that could happen is if the person posting was employed by the company responsible for moderating these boards. More likely is the person complaining is pretty good at putting a spin on your words in the comments box in such a way as to make them seem like they are breaking the rules.


    Faye Tsar:

    Sorry, that was just the start of the answer to your question as to why certain moderation issues are dealt with instantly and others are delayed... They're dealt with by different people.

    Once again a post that cleared the pre-mod procedure has been referred to hosts and will probably be removed. 

    Not sure where that quote came from, but that situation is quite possible if the original wording of the post out of context doesn't break the house rules...

    - Person on premod posts.
    - Moderator checks it and passes it.
    - Someone complains about it.
    - Moderator sees it again, isn't sure the second time round (the wording itself doesn't break the rules) and doesn't want to fail it completely but as the accompanying comments by the person complaining _could_ be genuine, they refer it to the CCT for confirmation.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by riverbank (U2851836) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    I'm not allowed to comment, Whisky!

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Smilie Minogue (U8747614) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008

    Hosts have many other duties besides looking after the messageboards  

    Since Peta left us a few weeks ago there has been a noticeable drop in terms of an active host presence on the boards 

    Which to me, is part of the problem.

    Peta and Lee have both said in the past that being a Host is voluntary, so maybe being a Host should be a job in itself, with 'voluntary' duties being carried out as and when time allows. smiley - smiley

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by third-doctor (U1538046) on Thursday, 30th October 2008

    It's the inconsistent application of House Rules, used in a way that targets an individual, that concerns me.  I presume that this is due to the different people judging the complaints. However, during the final weeks of the former host, I certainly had the impression that a degree of vindictiveness had crept in. As you say, they may well not know who is posting, so perhaps we were all in the firing line. At one stage, the post-priori rationales were very transparent - I, for one, had posts removed when I tried to answer specific questions posed by the host herself - the reason being that I referred to my own case (which is apparently against house rules). In another instance, I was told that my message was removed because I quoted the common short form for Americans (which none of my American colleagues find offensive), but a few weeks later, someone started a thread with this word as the title - it was allowed to remain.

    I had thought that a more liberal system had begun subsequent to the former host leaving, but a couple of recent decisions have made me wonder.

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by riverbank (U2851836) on Thursday, 30th October 2008

    I'd have said that one person pressing the alert button forty times or more over a couple of days would be classed as breaking House Rules, especially if it was aimed at a small, specific number of members.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by Angelicweeyin (U5849806) on Thursday, 30th October 2008

    Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:21 GMT, in reply to riverbank in message 27

    Agreed Riverbank it is *supposed* to be an offence itself. Why a person should do such a thing is beyond me though, have they not got anything better to do?

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by SometimesInvisiblePoster (U9636067) ** on Thursday, 30th October 2008

    third-doctor
    For example, if one sends in a complaint about a message and receives a more or less instantaneous response 1/4 past midnight (UK time), does this indicate that someone is working late or is it simply a computer generated standard reply?
     

    third-doctor, are you the one who has been using the red button over the last few weeks?
    Hello to the rest of the gang of 6 who have a particular interest in this subject. smiley - winkeye

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by Smilie Minogue (U8747614) on Thursday, 30th October 2008

    Can't think who you're on about Roz smiley - whistle

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by third-doctor (U1538046) on Thursday, 30th October 2008

    third-doctor, are you the one who has been using the red button over the last few weeks?  I used the "red button" once over the last few months. So, no - whoever this person was is probably someone who contributed to one of the threads that he/she found objectionable.

    I did, however, have one of my messages removed because I said, "Ah, yes - now I understand" in response to someone pointing out that the person who started one thread had no history of posting message before and so was probably a WUM - and I didn't even quote the message! I'm still waiting to find out what I am supposed to have done wrong there.

    What's this about someone hitting the complain button 40 times? Is that true?

    Certain threads seem to get more moderator attention than others (the "Bonekickers" one leaps to mind).

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by SometimesInvisiblePoster (U9636067) ** on Thursday, 30th October 2008

    third-doctor
    ..... So, no - whoever this person was is probably someone who contributed to one of the threads that he/she found objectionable.

    I did, however, have one of my messages removed because I said, "Ah, yes - now I understand" in response to someone pointing out that the person who started one thread had no history of posting message before and so was probably a WUM - and I didn't even quote the message! I'm still waiting to find out what I am supposed to have done wrong there.

    What's this about someone hitting the complain button 40 times? Is that true?

    Certain threads seem to get more moderator attention than others (the "Bonekickers" one leaps to
     

    I think someone mentioned 40. I had 18 removed from a certain EE thread which was becoming unpleasant. Someone changed the topic to food and we had some gentle fun all day until posts of around 6 of us were pulled and we were all put on the naughty step for a week. The strange thing is many other posts remained which were off topc too and all the bigotted homophobic one seem to be acceptable.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Smilie Minogue (U8747614) on Thursday, 30th October 2008

    I did, however, have one of my messages removed because I said, "Ah, yes - now I understand" in response to someone pointing out that the person who started one thread had no history of posting message before and so was probably a WUM - and I didn't even quote the message! 

    Oops, that sounds like one of mine. smiley - blush

    Sorry third-doctor smiley - hug

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by third-doctor (U1538046) on Sunday, 2nd November 2008

    I don't blame you - but I do wonder about Beeb Brother's decisions sometimes.

    It seems that on some threads (such as the "Walking the Dead" ones), being off topic is the normal state of affairs - but on others, the mods are much more sensitive.

    Still no explanation from them...

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by SometimesInvisiblePoster (U9636067) ** on Saturday, 8th November 2008

    After 895 posts another EE gay kiss thread has just been closed. I posted a message advising another poster not to mention food and mine has been hidden! The food one has not.
    Others which are blatantly off topic and bigotted remain.
    There is no Justice!
    We are told that decisions about weekend hidden posts are not made until Monday afternoons because the Mods don't work weekends.
    Well they are working today.

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by riverbank (U2851836) on Saturday, 8th November 2008

    Chin up, Roz. There's no provision made for when an angry poster decides to pursue an individual by reporting all his or her posts. But on the other hand, you should be grateful you aren't the poster who's been pressing all the red triangles. What must his/her life be like? smiley - hug

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by SometimesInvisiblePoster (U9636067) ** on Saturday, 8th November 2008

    riverbank
    Chin up, Roz. There's no provision made for when an angry poster decides to pursue an individual by reporting all his or her posts. But on the other hand, you should be grateful you aren't the poster who's been pressing all the red triangles. What must his/her life be like?
     

    Thank you river, you may have a point. Some of mine on the Emmerdale thread have gone too.
    I should have known better than to mention the letter c on EE thread! smiley - hug

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by Smilie Minogue (U8747614) on Saturday, 8th November 2008

    Oh dear Roz, not the dreaded eff word again. smiley - hug

    On a brighter note, you've managed to get that thread closed at last! I thought that was NEVER going to happen, so cheers smiley - bubbly

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by SometimesInvisiblePoster (U9636067) ** on Saturday, 8th November 2008

    NippieSweetie
    Oh dear Roz, not the dreaded eff word again.
    On a brighter note, you've managed to get that thread closed at last! I thought that was NEVER going to happen, so cheers
     

    Thank you too Nippie. I need all the smiley - hugs I can get today.
    I don't think that I was responsible for it closing.
    Amazing it ever started bearing in mind the OP cut & ran smiley - winkeye
    Strange how that got past pre mod!

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by Smilie Minogue (U8747614) on Saturday, 8th November 2008

    Thank you river, you may have a point. Some of mine on the Emmerdale thread have gone too.  

    Sounds like a possibility if it's more than one post that's been removed then.smiley - steam

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by riverbank (U2851836) on Saturday, 8th November 2008

    There was a great example of bonkers moderation here: www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    The first post (genuinely very good and interesting) got reported by someone, but was allowed back by the hosts.

    A week earlier I'd used just ONE of the asterisked-out words, posted in exactly the same way, to describe the famous film tag to '28 Days' when I was discussing zombie-rules in 'Dead Set'. My post was reported and removed. smiley - doh

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by SometimesInvisiblePoster (U9636067) ** on Saturday, 8th November 2008

    riverbank
    It sounds as though you do have a problem. However you appear not to be in pre modso it could be worse.
    smiley - hug

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by deansay - one skint shepherd (U5811575) on Saturday, 8th November 2008

    Some of mine on the Emmerdale thread have gone too.  

    I'm sure they haven't RozKing, fulbournite's one has, as you predicted and warned them about the other's which have either been removed or are still in moderation process are a few postings of our 'new friend's' smiley - grr

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by third-doctor (U1538046) on Friday, 14th November 2008

    ...and still no reply from Beeb Brother.

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by Smilie Minogue (U8747614) on Friday, 14th November 2008

    I'm awaiting a reply about some of my posts regarding Cheryl Cole being modded. I wait with baited breath..........

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by third-doctor (U1538046) on Sunday, 16th November 2008

    Is it high-handedness or a slap-dash approach to moderation? Maybe they flip a coin to decide these things.

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by lateralthinking1 (U10007871) on Sunday, 16th November 2008

    I am going to put this question again as no one has answered it on the blog. I am also going to put it in more direct terms.

    WHY IF A MODERATOR IS IN DOUBT IS IT PASSED ONTO THE HOST TO DECIDE?

    WHY SHOULD THE HOST CARRY THE CAN IF IT THEN ALL GOES WRONG?

    IS IT NOT THE CASE THAT THE MODERATORS ARE BBC EMPLOYEES TOO? ARE THEY PAID MORE OR LESS THAN HOSTS?

    IS THIS NOT A VERY SIMILAR STRUCTURAL PROBLEM IN TERMS OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO WHAT HAS HAPPENED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS IN RESPECT OF RADIO ITSELF?

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by SometimesInvisiblePoster (U9636067) ** on Sunday, 16th November 2008

    deansay
    I'm sure they haven't RozKing, fulbournite's one has, as you predicted and warned them about the other's which have either been removed or are still in moderation process are a few postings of our 'new friend's'
     

    I am pretty sure some have. Not the early ones. Anyway it's done now. smiley - rose

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by Nick Reynolds (U11648404) on Sunday, 16th November 2008

    "IS THIS NOT A VERY SIMILAR STRUCTURAL PROBLEM IN TERMS OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO WHAT HAS HAPPENED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS IN RESPECT OF RADIO ITSELF?"

    Could you explain what you mean here (perhaps not in block capitals)?

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by SometimesInvisiblePoster (U9636067) ** on Sunday, 16th November 2008

    NickReynolds
    Could you explain what you mean here (perhaps not in block capitals)?
     

    smiley - ok Nick
    I didn't understand it.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.



Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2014 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.